It looks like Peter Sinclair has finished fixing the audio on his previous videos, and is now coming out with some new material. Check out this video, which tells a story that is infuriatingly typical.
Advertisement
About
Comment Policy
-
Recent Comments
Paul Handover on How much is most? Ben Winchester on How do climate models wor… dana1981 on How much is most? Paul Handover on Breaching the Mainstream chrisd3 on How much is most? Categories
When I read “Peter Sinclair”, I thought it meant “Fred Singer”. I got the two confused. Fred Singer => Peter Singer => Peter Sinclair.
Confusion aside, the video is brilliantly done as usual.
I would take a ‘cooling’ to mean something a bit different. That we are less likely to have extremely high warming. His chart has 4C. The predictions of 5C,6C,7C, it would be harder to get a decadal scale cooling. The Easterling&Wehner paper had some charts that showed this, though they presented the results differently, much as is being done here.
Chris Colose has a chart from that paper and some discussion.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/decadal-scale-coolings-not-all-that-unusual/
[If by "cooling" you mean something other than "a drop in global temperatures", you should really find a different word to avoid confusing people. Perhaps "moderate warming"? -Kate]
[citations needed - temperatures have leveled off]
The question Mr. Sinclair’s latest video raises in my mind is whether the various political commentators are willfully quoting climatologists out of context, or if they are fed these quotes by various think tanks and then use them without doing any fact checks. Not that the latter choice in any way is exculpatory, but I am interested. The story that is told by those who discount the possibility of global warming varies. But the idea that the vast majority of scientists that have relevant expert knowledge are going to need the advice of poitical commentators to straighten them out is amazing. What is more odd, is the thought that willfully misrepresenting scientific opinion will not eventually discredit those who do so. How can it be imagined that lying does not give evidence to one’s oponents? Because if you have confidence that you are in the right in any debate why stoop to a questionable tactic?